Help me choose! Scholarships (equal) at Michigan and Davis, instate tuition at Davis, better need-based loans at Davis. Long-term relationship in the Bay Area. Plans to do a dual degree (MS) wherever I go or nearby in Environmental Sciences. I guess for me it's coming down to graduating with much lower debt from Davis, but unsure if that would significantly reduce my employment opportunities compared with Michigan. Also, four-years of long distance sounds kind of awful...but moving to Michigan could be a great adventure. Please discuss! Thanks!!

Last edited by twelda on Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let's rule out Hastings @ sticker. OP, what are your goals after school? What would be difference in COA? Michigan will offer you better opportunities whatever field you choose to pursue, but if it will strap you with a significant amount of additional debt, if you can't get (or don't want) a job to repay that, and it will not be covered by Michigan's LRAP and/or IBR, MAYBE you should consider Davis. But you should probably go to Michigan.

Certainly, the rank disparity is large especially at the same price, but it's hard for us to make decisions for Op here b/c he has a relationship and we don't know the extent of it besides it's long-term, and also,OP wants to work in CA. Those two factors are "big softs" IMO. OP may not want to work where U Mich will likely place him and we can't just readily discount emotions here. We're not all mindless automotons like some of you TLS'ers are.

Certainly, the rank disparity is large especially at the same price, but it's hard for us to make decisions for Op here b/c he has a relationship and we don't know the extent of it besides it's long-term, and also,OP wants to work in CA. Those two factors are "big softs" IMO. OP may not want to work where U Mich will likely place him and we can't just readily discount emotions here. We're not all mindless automotons like some of you TLS'ers are.

This is pretty disingenuous representation of data considering self-selection does exist...

Certainly, the rank disparity is large especially at the same price, but it's hard for us to make decisions for Op here b/c he has a relationship and we don't know the extent of it besides it's long-term, and also,OP wants to work in CA. Those two factors are "big softs" IMO. OP may not want to work where U Mich will likely place him and we can't just readily discount emotions here. We're not all mindless automotons like some of you TLS'ers are.

This is pretty disingenuous representation of data considering self-selection does exist...

OP has ties to California. Mich will place him just as well in California as any of the other schools that have been mentioned. The data you put forward is horrendously skewed. Given that the majority of people in Mich don't select california, what you show is a testament to how strong Mich is and how weak the other schools are.

Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given. That is, unless you have the empirical self-selection data, in which case I'd love to see it?

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

Aggiegrad2011 wrote:Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given.

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

Well, we can look at anecdotal data of where michigan places its grads...

But correlation =/= causation.

Last time I took a science class, I was taught that empiricism =/= anecdote.

So, care to show me some empirical evidence that those folks are being SELF-SELECTED out of CA? That is what I am waiting for. Since I delivered empirical evidence I expect that your rebuttal should show the same.

Aggiegrad2011 wrote:Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given. That is, unless you have the empirical self-selection data, in which case I'd love to see it?

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

You realize this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that Santa Clara University is superior to Yale for the Bay Area?

Last time I took a science class, I was taught that empiricism =/= anecdote.

So, care to show me some empirical evidence that those folks are being SELF-SELECTED out of CA? That is what I am waiting for. Since I delivered empirical evidence I expect that your rebuttal should show the same.

Data regarding the percentage of UMich's class that is from California would probably suffice.

Last time I took a science class, I was taught that empiricism =/= anecdote.

So, care to show me some empirical evidence that those folks are being SELF-SELECTED out of CA? That is what I am waiting for. Since I delivered empirical evidence I expect that your rebuttal should show the same.

Data regarding the percentage of UMich's class that is from California would probably suffice.

Further, we'll need to know *exactly* why the students who were from California didn't return to California, since you're all arguing personal motive (self-selection).

It is possible that the firm selection wasn't that great from CA, in which case, it isn't self-selection as much as it is geography.

Again though until you can present empirical evidence, not mere anecdote or TLS prestige-/rank-favoritism, OP should be suspect in considering your advice of what to do w/r/t his relationship + working in CA.

Last edited by Aggiegrad2011 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aggiegrad2011 wrote:Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given. That is, unless you have the empirical self-selection data, in which case I'd love to see it?

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

You absolutely can assume that the percentage of Davis grads trying to get jobs in California is much higher than the percentage of Michigan grads trying to get jobs in California. This isn't science, it's a business decision. And if you refuse to include factors you can't quantify in business decisions, you will make bad ones.

Aggiegrad2011 wrote:Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given. That is, unless you have the empirical self-selection data, in which case I'd love to see it?

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

You absolutely can assume that the percentage of Davis grads trying to get jobs in California is much higher than the percentage of Michigan grads trying to get jobs in California. This isn't science, it's a business decision. And if you refuse to include factors you can't quantify in business decisions, you will make bad ones.

Aggiegrad2011 wrote:Since we can't quantify how much self-selection does exist, all we can work with is the empirical data we've been given.

We can't simply ASSUME (which is what you're all doing) that so few folks from U Mich decide to go to CA. You know what assumptions do.

Well, we can look at anecdotal data of where michigan places its grads...

But correlation =/= causation.

Last time I took a science class, I was taught that empiricism =/= anecdote.

So, care to show me some empirical evidence that those folks are being SELF-SELECTED out of CA? That is what I am waiting for. Since I delivered empirical evidence I expect that your rebuttal should show the same.

I'm glad that you realize the worth of empirical data. That being said, your empirical data is BAD EMPIRICAL data. So bad that in this case anecdotal evidence trumps it. As bk mentioned, according to your line of reasoning, santa clara law school is better for the bay area than yale. Its absurd.

You keep asking for proof that mich doesn't place better than UCD in california... You provided no proof on the contrary except for data that was easily shown to be bad. Now that we're in a place where its anecdotal evidence vs no evidence at all, its clear that anecdotal evidence trumps what you're arguing. Until you can come back with some solid evidence that isn't skewed by self selection or other biases, your argument is not only moot, but wholeheartedly ridiculous.